USA v. Kelly Ritchie, No. 11-10843 (5th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 11-10843 Document: 00512132957 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-10843 Summary Calendar February 1, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. KELLY LANCE RITCHIE, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:07-CR-56-1 Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Kelly Lance Ritchie appeals the sentence imposed after revocation of his supervised release. Ritchie argues that his 24-month sentence is unreasonable because the district court relied on a prohibited sentencing factor, his need for mental health treatment, to impose or lengthen the sentence. Because Ritchie did not object to the reasonableness of his sentence based upon the district court s reference to his mental health/rehabilitative needs, our review of that issue is limited to plain error. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 11-10843 Document: 00512132957 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2013 No. 11-10843 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009). In Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382, 2393 (2011), the Supreme Court held in a direct criminal appeal that a district court may not impose or lengthen a prison sentence to enable an offender to complete a treatment program or otherwise to promote rehabilitation. Even if we assume that Tapia applies in the revocation context, see United States v. Receskey, 699 F.3d 807, 810 (5th Cir. 2012), Ritchie has not demonstrated plain error. The district court in this case stated: I m going to sentence the defendant . . . to 24 months [in prison]. I will recommend that he be placed at the Medical Center in Springfield, Missouri. This will afford adequate deterrence, protect the public, and give the defendant an opportunity to participate in some mental health treatment service programs. This statement was the district court s sole remark regarding Ritchie s need for treatment, and it falls far short of showing that the district court lengthened Ritchie s sentence of imprisonment to further his rehabilitation. Accordingly, Ritchie has not shown that the district court plainly erred under Tapia. See id. at 812. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
